Expediency

One of the giant fears I have is the short term, small picture, expedient view our leadership and many Americans have. Everything is in faster cycles now, 6 month product cycles in technology, Wall Street’s preoccupation with the present cycle.

Speed, when it sacrifices process, where process is necessary to the outcome, is a problem. That's the definition of expedience. I don't want expedient. I want efficient (for things) and effective (for people).

Slowness, when process isn't complex or is ubiquitous is also problem.

But it is important we differentiate when each of these is the case. It requires critical thinking.

During Covid, process was highlighted in vaccine approval. They went as fast as they could but they determined essential process, given the risks, and moved forward. It was not expedient, despite the political pressure for expedience. One of the problems is that many Americans saw the political push for expedience and subsequently related that to the vaccine development and approval process, which was not the case.

Something in a similar vein is happening with re-opening. 

There's been a constant push to re-open when the science didn't support it and because it was such a fight for public health a conservative stance by the CDC developed - because any little hint that things were getting better was construed as the ability to abandon public health measures.

The political pressure to allow "no mask" between vaccinated individuals was heavy, but when finally announced was so sudden it seemed like it was expediency, not based in science, but based on buckling to the political pressure, when in fact as part of the conservative stance it was held back until the number of vaccinations started diminishing and the hope was (and is, seeing this is relatively recent) that this would incent additional individuals to vaccinate. That has yet to be seen. 

Expediency occurs for several reasons, most of them at least morally corrupt if not logically;

To produce what looks like due process but skipping the steps to actually be due process in an effort to placate process while r ushing an outcome. Willful indifference to the impact of skipping the steps.
In ignorance of the proper steps - or in oversimplification (intentional or due to misunderstanding) of those steps, skipping due process or involving fewer stakeholders than needed for due process, in order to speed things along.
A wish for something other than reality, which can at times, be slow, painful and a lot of work. Hint: Reality always wins in the end.

There are tons of variations and other reasons, but most of the impedance comes for a wish for speed. Understandable - as human beings, we have an urge for immediate gratification, physically (sex, food, other bodily functions) to economic philosophy, speed is frequently seen as the desirable attribute. 

Our ability to master ourselves is limited and in the face of pressure (in business for instance) gives way to pressure on due process. 

And this folks, is why business cannot dictate things like healthcare, welfare and education. Business will build amazing things and services - which survive just as long as they can resist expedience in development, manufacture, in service. And then, like a show whose ratings have dropped, they are eliminated in favor of some new hope for profit. Problem is people get discarded in that process and that cannot happen in people support systems. 

In people systems, process matters. Nuance matters. And in fact, frequently, speed manners which necessitates things like advanced planning, risk assessment and even, gulp, inventory - all of which push against the expedient.

Stephen Covey said this - and also indicated that you cannot be efficient with people, you need to strive for efficiency with things, effectiveness with people.

Efficiency can also be the enemy in people systems. What seems like a proper paring down to minimum essentials can lock a people system up. People systems frequently need lubrication - like forgiveness, time, second and third chances, a bit more than is expected. 

People systems need to be effective. Which is why government and non-profits are where people systems live. Because their goal is not to be profitable. It’s to be effective.

Which is also why, when we try to run these things like for-profit business, we often fail to deliver - and why those who would rather not spend money on helping people will use examples of inefficiency as reasons to cancel programs altogether. That should not be the default.

Certainly these systems must maintain effectiveness. They need to be thrifty where they can. But if your remove money or any resource without due process, the system can be caused to be ineffective or to fail altogether. 

We should look at people systems with an eye for the effective, with a nod to efficiency and completely eliminating expedience. And even in business, when looking from an HR perspective, we should use this as at least one perspective, along with efficiency.

We have to make sure not to confuse expedience with effective or efficient. It is neither - it is an illusion of both, without the good result.